SATISH KUMAR Vs. VIBHU GOYAL AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 03.08.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ Prescribed Authority, Haridwar in P.A. Case No. 4 of 2002 'Vibhu Goyal and ors. Vs. Satish Kumar and ors.' as well as the order dated 19.09.2013 passed by IV Addl. District Judge, Haridwar in Rent Control Appeal No. 75 of 2009 'Satish Kumar Vs. Bibhu Goyal'.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the petition, are that the respondents/landlords filed an application for release of the shop in question for demolition, reconstruction and for bonafide need of Ankit Goel-respondent no.2 herein, under Sec. 21 (1) (a) (b) of the U.P. Urban Building (Regulation of Letting, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) in the Court of Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Haridwar, which was registered as P.A. Suit No. 4 of 2002 'Vibhu Goel and ors. Vs. Satish Kumar and ors.' The petitioner-tenant contested the suit by filing written statement whereby he denied the contents made in the release application. The Prescribed Authority vide its judgment and order dated 03.08.2009 allowed the release application of the landlord. Aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the tenant/petitioner preferred Rent Control Appeal, bearing No. 75 of 2009 'Satish Kumar Vs. Bibhu and ors.' before the District Judge, Dehradun, which was subsequently transferred to the Court of IV Addl. District Judge, Haridwar, who vide judgment and order dated 19.09.2012, dismissed the said appeal and affirmed the judgment and order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

(3.) Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that though the petitioner filed documentary evidence, relating to ownership of a shop of the landlord at Jwalapur, but the Prescribed Authority, while allowing the release application did not consider this vital issue. He submitted that considering the fact that family of Ankit Goel is having a shop in Main Bazar, Sarafa Bazar, Jwalapur, which is vacant, the need of the landlord was not genuine and bonafide. He further submitted that the shop in question is only source of livelihood of the petitioner but the Courts below have not considered this aspect of the matter.